ST. LOUIS (KMOX) – A proposed first-of-its-kind law in the nation would ban gun ownership for anyone in Illinois convicted of animal abuse.

“People that have abused animals, every study has said they abuse women, they abuse children, they’re serial killers. … So what we’re saying is if you’re convicted of animal abuse, no guns for you the rest of your life,” says Jerry Elsner, executive director of the Illinois State Crime Commission.

He says Illinois also led the way on banning gun ownership for those convicted of domestic battery.

Under the proposed law, those convicted of abusing an animal would be denied a Firearm Owners ID card, or have their current license revoked.

Elsner admits he will likely face a stiff backlash from the NRA and defenders of the Second Amendment, but says if such a law saves even one life, it will have been worth the effort.

I shudder to give more power to take away rights to the gov. If they are not to be trusted with firearms, why are they in public?

"You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy: 'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom...and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged..." - Capt. Jean-Luc Picard

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

I shudder to give more power to take away rights to the gov. If they are not to be trusted with firearms, why are they in public?

Because the Supreme Court has told us that we can't put them away and throw away the key. It is true that those who abuse animals are more likely to become violent criminals, but a scant few become Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacey.

Some underage **** cut the throat of a puppy here, nearly killed him, and it took a local media and social media backlash like nothing I've ever seen to get the SA to entertain felony charges. Some kid a county over from me viciously beat a puppy to death and was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor. These scumbags should be felons. And they should be in prison. Anyone who bashes a dog's skull for kicks is unfit for society. And I don't wanna hear the "I was abused as a child" (really? So was I, but I didn't become a sociopath) since it would shock me that the scumbag WASN'T abused as a child.

Just charge em with a felony and convict if the crime reaches that level. Now we have a reason to make em a prohibited person. They should be looking into enhancing penalties for those who commit animal abuse. Not looking into adding more prohibitions on gun ownership. Enforce the law as it is now and they don't have to add to it (I suppose this is called "job security").

I shudder to give more power to take away rights to the gov. If they are not to be trusted with firearms, why are they in public?

Because the Supreme Court has told us that we can't put them away and throw away the key. It is true that those who abuse animals are more likely to become violent criminals, but a scant few become Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacey.

Some underage **** cut the throat of a puppy here, nearly killed him, and it took a local media and social media backlash like nothing I've ever seen to get the SA to entertain felony charges. Some kid a county over from me viciously beat a puppy to death and was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor. These scumbags should be felons. And they should be in prison. Anyone who bashes a dog's skull for kicks is unfit for society. And I don't wanna hear the "I was abused as a child" (really? So was I, but I didn't become a sociopath) since it would shock me that the scumbag WASN'T abused as a child.

Just charge em with a felony and convict if the crime reaches that level. Now we have a reason to make em a prohibited person. They should be looking into enhancing penalties for those who commit animal abuse. Not looking into adding more prohibitions on gun ownership. Enforce the law as it is now and they don't have to add to it (I suppose this is called "job security").

I think studies have shown that people who use guns to commit armed robbery and armed carjacking, go on the eventually kill people, so how about we start locking them up for 70 or 80 years before they do murder someone.

Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.

I shudder to give more power to take away rights to the gov. If they are not to be trusted with firearms, why are they in public?

Because the Supreme Court has told us that we can't put them away and throw away the key. It is true that those who abuse animals are more likely to become violent criminals, but a scant few become Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacey.

Some underage **** cut the throat of a puppy here, nearly killed him, and it took a local media and social media backlash like nothing I've ever seen to get the SA to entertain felony charges. Some kid a county over from me viciously beat a puppy to death and was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor. These scumbags should be felons. And they should be in prison. Anyone who bashes a dog's skull for kicks is unfit for society. And I don't wanna hear the "I was abused as a child" (really? So was I, but I didn't become a sociopath) since it would shock me that the scumbag WASN'T abused as a child.

Just charge em with a felony and convict if the crime reaches that level. Now we have a reason to make em a prohibited person. They should be looking into enhancing penalties for those who commit animal abuse. Not looking into adding more prohibitions on gun ownership. Enforce the law as it is now and they don't have to add to it (I suppose this is called "job security").

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

I am with you Skinny. Remember that pos Michael Vick? Where is his dog killing a**?

If they make every criminal act a disqualifier, the only difference is that we'll have a bunch of criminals who cannot ever own a gun (hmmmmmmmm...is THAT what this is about?). If they drop the hammer on those who abuse animals (without adding to the list of disqualifiers) then maybe at least some people will think twice about it. The rest, well, if they want a gun then they'll get one regardless of some "lifetime ban."
All of this predicting criminals crap is nonsense. My opposition to this is due to what I know about those who hate guns with a passion and would do anything to keep civilian ownership at a virtually non-existent level. They simply wish to make everyone a prohibited person and they are "beginning" (this started a long time ago) with the stuff that most people won't argue about. I mean, one cannot truly understand what the true motivation behind this is if one doesn't know the endgame. They start at "well, no felon should own a gun" (I believe that is unconstitutional as applied, but not on its face for obvious reasons) and end at "no one can own a gun," all while filling in the blank space between those two. "No one convicted of animal abuse should own a gun" is a lot more palatable to the general public than "No one who's ever received a speeding ticket should own a gun" but they could and would love to get to that point. I don't think that would stand up in court (now) but if they sufficiently screw up the heads of kids, who go on to become judges, it is definitely possible. Meanwhile, they continue with slaps on the wrist for those convicted of animal abuse.
Guns are not the issue. Creating psychopaths is the issue and not dealing with them before they go on to become murderers is the problem. Taking away guns from a budding serial killer is...it's utterly pointless. They're psychopaths. And it isn't like animal abuse just started. Good Lord some politician is gonna sit there and tell me this is something new? It isn't new. It's only publicized more frequently because of social media. That's it. Notice how everyone gets outraged at crap that has always taken place? This isn't new. Stop trying to predict stuff, acting like this is some new trend, and actually deal with the true problem instead of take away constitutional rights yet not do a thing to address the true problem.
FWIW I also don't believe the Lautenberg crap is constitutional as applied to the entire class of offenders. I have an acquaintance who's got a lifetime bar because of the Lautenberg crap and it's because his ex tried to beat the snot out of him, he held her back (didn't strike her at all), called the cops himself, and ends up with a DB conviction. She tried it five more times until he left her based on advice from the police who finally wised up to her being completely unhinged and stopped taking her seriously. He's a huge guy with sleeves of tattoos. Basically the perfect defendant. The way I see it, anyone who believes that suspending his right to keep and bear arms is constitutional is also condoning violence on men, excusing violence perpetrated by women. The thing is that it doesn't even bother him much because he wouldn't be where he is in life (happily married family man with a good paying blue collar job) if that hadn't happened to him.
Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

ST. LOUIS (KMOX) – A proposed first-of-its-kind law in the nation would ban gun ownership for anyone in Illinois convicted of animal abuse.

“People that have abused animals, every study has said they abuse women, they abuse children, they’re serial killers. … So what we’re saying is if you’re convicted of animal abuse, no guns for you the rest of your life,” says Jerry Elsner, executive director of the Illinois State Crime Commission.

He says Illinois also led the way on banning gun ownership for those convicted of domestic battery.

Under the proposed law, those convicted of abusing an animal would be denied a Firearm Owners ID card, or have their current license revoked.

Elsner admits he will likely face a stiff backlash from the NRA and defenders of the Second Amendment, but says if such a law saves even one life, it will have been worth the effort.

If that is the case, then I will take the Illinois Constitutional Carry law that will undoubtedly save many more than one life by allowing those who are unable to afford the expense and red tape of getting a CCL to carry a firearm to protect themselves from criminals intent on doing them harm or, in many cases, fatal injury. Remember, if such a law saves even one life, then it will have been worth the effort.

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me

“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein

“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me

The goal is clearly to expand the set of prohibited persons until it includes everyone who is not a law enforcement officer or a member of the military on active duty. The tactic is to do this one hard-to-object-to step at a time. Each one of these laws that slips through makes the next one easier to enact. Before you know it, we'll be down to defending the 2A rights of serial parking ticket scofflaws.

Hey, just a thought, don't kick your dog and you have nothing to worry about.

Not that simple.

Lets say your dog runs on a line, you have a fenced yard, put your dog on a line in your yard, etc. You let your dog out to do his/her business. It's coldish out, 28-30 degrees. You get an emergency call, call from work, something happens that you slightly lose time. You DON'T have a dog house in your yard. An animal rights activist drives by and reports you for leaving that dog outside over 30 minutes with no shelter. You are now cited/charged for animal abuse.

If they make every criminal act a disqualifier, the only difference is that we'll have a bunch of criminals who cannot ever own a gun (hmmmmmmmm...is THAT what this is about?). If they drop the hammer on those who abuse animals (without adding to the list of disqualifiers) then maybe at least some people will think twice about it. The rest, well, if they want a gun then they'll get one regardless of some "lifetime ban." All of this predicting criminals crap is nonsense. My opposition to this is due to what I know about those who hate guns with a passion and would do anything to keep civilian ownership at a virtually non-existent level. They simply wish to make everyone a prohibited person and they are "beginning" (this started a long time ago) with the stuff that most people won't argue about. I mean, one cannot truly understand what the true motivation behind this is if one doesn't know the endgame. They start at "well, no felon should own a gun" (I believe that is unconstitutional as applied, but not on its face for obvious reasons) and end at "no one can own a gun," all while filling in the blank space between those two. "No one convicted of animal abuse should own a gun" is a lot more palatable to the general public than "No one who's ever received a speeding ticket should own a gun" but they could and would love to get to that point. I don't think that would stand up in court (now) but if they sufficiently screw up the heads of kids, who go on to become judges, it is definitely possible. Meanwhile, they continue with slaps on the wrist for those convicted of animal abuse. Guns are not the issue. Creating psychopaths is the issue and not dealing with them before they go on to become murderers is the problem. Taking away guns from a budding serial killer is...it's utterly pointless. They're psychopaths. And it isn't like animal abuse just started. Good Lord some politician is gonna sit there and tell me this is something new? It isn't new. It's only publicized more frequently because of social media. That's it. Notice how everyone gets outraged at crap that has always taken place? This isn't new. Stop trying to predict stuff, acting like this is some new trend, and actually deal with the true problem instead of take away constitutional rights yet not do a thing to address the true problem. FWIW I also don't believe the Lautenberg crap is constitutional as applied to the entire class of offenders. I have an acquaintance who's got a lifetime bar because of the Lautenberg crap and it's because his ex tried to beat the snot out of him, he held her back (didn't strike her at all), called the cops himself, and ends up with a DB conviction. She tried it five more times until he left her based on advice from the police who finally wised up to her being completely unhinged and stopped taking her seriously. He's a huge guy with sleeves of tattoos. Basically the perfect defendant. The way I see it, anyone who believes that suspending his right to keep and bear arms is constitutional is also condoning violence on men, excusing violence perpetrated by women. The thing is that it doesn't even bother him much because he wouldn't be where he is in life (happily married family man with a good paying blue collar job) if that hadn't happened to him. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

ST. LOUIS (KMOX) – A proposed first-of-its-kind law in the nation would ban gun ownership for anyone in Illinois convicted of animal abuse.

“People that have abused animals, every study has said they abuse women, they abuse children, they’re serial killers. … So what we’re saying is if you’re convicted of animal abuse, no guns for you the rest of your life,” says Jerry Elsner, executive director of the Illinois State Crime Commission.

He says Illinois also led the way on banning gun ownership for those convicted of domestic battery.

Under the proposed law, those convicted of abusing an animal would be denied a Firearm Owners ID card, or have their current license revoked.

Elsner admits he will likely face a stiff backlash from the NRA and defenders of the Second Amendment, but says if such a law saves even one life, it will have been worth the effort.

Be interesting to read based on how it's worded. If it's properly worded, any opposition will make those who oppose seem like evil, heartless and vile. Which probably is absolutely the intention of the bill.

Remember perception is reality. "Oh my god you hate animals. You want these evil heartless butchers to have guns! Don't you know those people who abuse animals grow up to be serial killers! You want serial killers to have guns! blah blah blah"

So if you don't support this bill you agree puppies and kittens should be beat up. I see the angle they are going with this one.

Yes. Exactly. I doubt they give a care if the bill passes or not. They want pro gun politicians on the voting record as voting against it and they want to be able to paint the NRA and other gun rights groups who oppose it as evil heartless etc... This is a publicity and propaganda bill, nothing more.

The goal is clearly to expand the set of prohibited persons until it includes everyone who is not a law enforcement officer or a member of the military on active duty. The tactic is to do this one hard-to-object-to step at a time. Each one of these laws that slips through makes the next one easier to enact. Before you know it, we'll be down to defending the 2A rights of serial parking ticket scofflaws.

Yes. That has always been their goal, and this is one step toward that goal. They know that no-one want to defend animal abusers, so they can add one more checkbox to the "prohibited persons" list. The end goal is that virtually everyone will be prohibited. This should stop!

Every Study finds Muslim, more than any other religion, tend to be terrorist. Ban them from owning guns or entering US.
Every Study finds transgender things, much more than any other, tend to ........
Every Study finds homosexuals, much more than non-homosexuals, tend to ......
Every Study finds women who have had at least one abortion tend to think its ok kill babies.

If someone is found guilty of intentionally killing a pet, they deserve a felony conviction at minimum. Therefore, no longer aloud to own guns. Seems pretty simple but not surprising that a liberal wants more laws created.